The Second Amendment's right to self defense

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Wolfstrike, May 2, 2012.

  1. Wolfstrike
    Offline

    Wolfstrike Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,358
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Ratings:
    +1,175
    ...so having a look at this old dusty document, found crumbled up in the back of a storage room, called the "United States Constitution", we find some arguments.

    The Second Amendment is not just about guns, it outlines your right of self defense.
    of course the Second Amendment doesn't actually SAY "self defense", so that's an open door for the modern legal vultures to change everything to mean, 'what ever the rich say, that's what you have to do'
    the founders of the nation were hoping the country would never become to stupit.

    in the beginning of out nation, many founders of the country were planning never to have a "standing army", they were terrified of the (federal) government having power.
    now days we see why.
    the only person who had any power to detain someone was the local Sheriff, this person had to list the suspects trespass of law, and QUICKLY charge and try to convict the suspect who was presumed innocent.
    the only power of the government was to conduct a trial, only a jury of citizens could give the government power to jail or execute someone.


    the best way to think of American self defense is to imagine yourself with your home on the range.
    you are out in the middle of nowhere and a group of 5 men arrive and start stealing your cattle.
    that is their only crime depending on what THEY feel like.
    the Second Amendment is clear as to what your right is. you have the right, ...if you want, to confront these criminals, load your family up with rifles, and leave 5 dead theif-s in a pool of blood where they stood.

    there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Sheriff conducting an investigation to see if the facts add up on behalf of the government.
    however, the home owner being the only survivor of the incident, there is only one side to give testimony, and who is the Sheriff to dispute what the home owner says happened?

    American law was never meant to be perfect.
    in this case, the home owner becomes the suspect and he is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
    American law was written to leave this person alone unless the jury believes there is no doubt he committed a crime.
    with no witnesses, that would be near impossible to achieve.

    if the home owner has no right to kill these suspects, what is his rights?
    a modern legal disruptor says his right is "to call the police"
    so the right of the home owner would be to flee to the Sheriff's house, bang on the door, and tell him 5 men are stealing from his farm? ...then the Sheriff and the home owner would get their ass kicked by the 5 men.
    the idea is ridiculous.
    you say, 'well we don't have that anymore, we have police who are supposed to be there in 5 minutes'
    was there a major shift in the Constitution because a city decided to add a police force?
    when was the ratification of the Constitution to dissolve the Second Amendment and tell people they only have a right to call the police? that never happened.


    what is a police officer?
    a police officer is nothing more that a citizen who agrees to abide by certain rules, given by the public, to act as an impartial third party witness, for the goal of fighting crime.
    his word is no more valid than any other citizen.
    naturally a jury would rather believe an impartial police officer rather than a suspect, ...and there is nothing wrong with that, until is goes too far.

    now days we have police offers who are paid from extorted money from the public, police departments who only answer to government officials, and the government locks away people who police offers say lied to them.
    this is completely unconstitutional.

    what happens when police departments are ordered to ignore crimes?
    such is the case with illegal immigration and car burglary.
    what happens IF police departments are ordered to ignore home invasion robberies?

    do we decide cases because black people feel someone is guity?
    do we decide cases because some rights group says so?
    de we decide cases because someone has achieved the highest rank in government and he says so?

    HERE COMES A SHOCKING FACT FOR YOU.
    the right to self defense is protected by the Second Amendment,
    police departments are not!
    your right to own guns, protect yourself and your property, far out weigh the existence of any police department!!!






    for the last many years our government has placed , what they call vigilantism, as priority number one.
    what has our legal system accomplished by trying to prosecute people who defend themselves?
    our government has told the public that criminals are not to be touched.
    this is a very frightening concept considering our government picks and chooses which crimes they feel like enforcing.
    we have gangs and mafias who know how to exist under the radar, with no fear of the average citizen.
    this is not an improvement of society.
    if the government doesn't want citizens solving crimes for them, then the government needs to provide a system that works.



    ...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,446
    Thanks Received:
    19,869
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,482
    The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  3. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,551
    Thanks Received:
    6,873
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,070
    Shhhhhh.... you can't tell them that.

    I find it amusing the GUn Nuts are still going on, even though the Democrats gave up on Gun control about 12 years ago.
     
  4. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,402
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,350
    Not really

    but since Fast and Furious
    they don't like to talk about it anymore


    :eusa_angel:
     
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The right to self defense, as with all other rights, is not absolute, and it is subject to appropriate and reasonable restrictions.
     
  6. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,551
    Thanks Received:
    6,873
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,070
    Ummm, no, they never really did. Daring to point out that most guns the Mexican Drug Cartels use are bought in the US is not exactly trying to get some kind of sensible gun legislation.

    Hell, they didn't even call for anything after giffords got shot by the crazy person who was able to walk right into a gun shop and get a Mack-9 with an extra big clip.
     
  7. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,402
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,350

    It depends on one's tolerance for the kind of weapons
    Holder did tell congress


    Holder


    This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful
    in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship
    and the crime situation in Mexico.

    (which is how they got into the criminal mess with Fast and Furious )



    Of course the ATF did say about the expiration of the ban

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated it "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  8. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,551
    Thanks Received:
    6,873
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,070
    No one wants to take away your gun binky...

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,402
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,350
    Good to see
    you know your claim

    "Democrats gave up on Gun control about 12 years ago."

    is false
     
  10. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    ussc rules it does
     

Share This Page